YES I can hardly believe it, my B'ASS upgraded DAC (actually B'ASS + Phisolator + "secret" upgrade i.e. the full G3 upgrade) arrived back today. And probably for the first time ever I seem to be the first to get the upgrade. What a privilege!.

With high anticipation I unpacked the DAC and plugged it in. It has been running for only a short time so these are first impressions.

Straight away the difference is totally obvious. In my room I have always been very fortunate to have low subterranean bass. This is clear on tracks like Dave Brubeck "Charles Matthew Halleluja" where you can hear what I am sure is the stage moving not in time to the music. Before the upgrade it was easy to hear but you had to concentrate. Now it is totally clear and easy to follow a band on a stage where the stage clearly is part of the set. And some of the sounds are very very deep indeed. The difference now is that they do not roll off you can hear them WAY WAY down easily. There is more snap and it is easier to hear "tunes" in the bass.

Then onto some Dance music "Chase and Status - International ( Dimension Remix )" plums the depths WOW it sends shivers down the back of the neck. It was there before but NOW oh boy!! you can hear it in spades.

But that is the WOW factor stuff - B'ASS sounds to impress your friends and neighbours. It does not stop there though. All through the frequency spectrum sounds are "rounder" more natural and more detailed. They seem to start and stop better. Synth sounds are more clearly delineated, more natural & rounder.

Moving onto Bach the Cello Sonata's played by Anner Bijlsma the Cello sounds superb the tone of the instrument is richer the strings more detailed and more relaxed a very natural presentation.

I could go on but hopefully you get the idea. It is not perfect just yet after all the DAC has been parked in some cold depot over the Easter weekend and then bounced around in a van today. Poor DAC she has not had much time to settle with a nice warming current flowing through her circuits. Also new caps for sure they need to be burned in.

What is really great is that I know it is going to get even better over the coming days.

Ah Paul, thank you so much for this swift response which in my view is always so crucial (and implies some responsibility).I loved to perceive this very first response from an "upgrader" and like to tell you that you can always come back at these initial judgements.

Let me add that we planned this upgrade already many moons ago while your NOS1a was here anyway, and that we very much appreciate your thinking along with us that back then all was too soon to let it go, no matter my own enthusiasm (and your urge) for it. It must have been teasing up to deadening (?).

Keep us updated where possible and notice that I recognize all you said so far (and how I love your honesty either way - yup).Peter

After a further listen last night the general "tightness" and grain that is always present with new electronics was more evident. I am sure it will ease off in due course and I will of course post further comments then.

I keep a hopeful watch on my email every morning for the email from Peter saying it's time to box mine up and send it his way

I can't wait to hear additional audition comments as things break in.

I still find it unbelievable that for some of us who have had the NOS1 for years that we keep getting an upgrade path. That speaks volumes to not only the foundational design of the NOS1 but also to Peter's passion and his customer service.

To all of us that have been audiophiles for over 30 years, we know this is wholly unique!!

Peter, I may have missed it, but do you recommend against using an Intona with the Phisolator? If so, will the Phisolator truly galvanically isolate the NOS1 from the audio PC? This is very important to me because I run the audio PC and the NOS1/amps off two separate AC mains circuits.

I don't know. I recall trying the Intona with the Phisolator but only to see if that works. I am not even sure anymore about the result because I also tried the Intona with two Phisolators and that did not work but could be coincidence.

Your two AC mains circuits are also to be investigated for real merits because you may think all isolates via the USB cable, while it does not for the interlinks. A bit difficult to judge.

Also keep in mind that the NOS1a/G3 is double-isolated hence you should have no problems without Intona in your current situation.Anyway I personally would never like to be dependend on such isolation for different mains circuits because you will be constraining yourself ? (or think you do)

After two days running ISO Tech Demag files to get the DAC burned in I am surprised at just how much the sound quality has improved. The rough edge has virtually disappeared and the sound has loosened and flows better. Have to say I would have expected this level of improvement to have taken a week especially with those new Elna's.

The bass quality has also improved with burn in.

The only thing I would add is that with much listening I would hesitate to call this upgrade B'ASS because that infers the only improvements are in the bass. That just is not so every aspect of the sound has improved.

Could it be that there will be further improvement with more burn in? now there's a thought.

It is now the second day I have the B'ass G3 upgrade. What Paul already told about SQ all is very, very true.

This is NOT a subtle upgrade, I is a MUST upgrade for the NOS1a. The SQ goes from WOW to WOW*WOW. I do not know how to tell it but now with the music you also get the essence of it. The whole picture with all the details.

I am really happy with this upgrade.

And knowing my wife is not happy with to much bass..... although the upgrade call B'ass this is the best bass ever heard! So I can say WE are happy with this!

I am pretty sure that some fair amount of burn-in is necessary because I myself keep on thinking that things have improved again.Notice that I too don't have this particular B'ASS for a very long time (only since the last round of PCBs) and that the remainder (Phisolator and little secret) are also "new". So say that you are behind maybe 6-8 weeks only. But for example :

Yesterday I pulled out my 2nd Phisolator just because I think it is too much (of goodness) but also because I can't be fair with listening to what "you" hear. I had it in for maybe 4 weeks. Well, besides I think it could be sounding better without the 2nd one (but totally different), the sound is as well just completely new to me. Thus, very different from when I had in one only. So you should be even more amazed in the upcoming future.

I finally had a chance to listen last night to the G3 B'ASS. It had been burning I since the day before.

To quote Arjan All I can say is WOW*WOW

This is not a subtle upgrade and I concur with Paul that it is much more than better bass. Honestly, I have always had what I consider great bass but with the G3 along with bass there also seems to be a non existent noise floor with everything in focus to a degree I never believed possible. Detail retrieval is just staggering. The emotional impact of the music is conveyed like never before.

I had the opportunity to be able to use an original NOS1 during the time I sent my NOS1a for the G3 upgrade. Listening to the original I was quickly aware of why I was drawn to Phasure and Peter's labors of love in the first place. It is a great sounding DAC which I could live with forever.

The fact that Peter has been able to make these advances in SQ beyond the original NOS1 is true testimony to his dedication to achieving the best music reproduction possible.

Peter posted way way back that NOS1 with Orelo's have minimal room effects (IIRC). I had trouble believing that then but when I visited Peter's house before purchasing my Orelino's Peters room certainly did not exhibit any of the room effects that bedevil most systems (specifically bass reinforcements and suck outs due to standing waves). That is all except for one tiny corner at the back of the room (the "Naughty" corner just next to the naughty step ha ha).

So when I got my Orelino's setup in my rather difficult room (SQ wise that is) it was not a big surprise that there were big room effects. Not withstanding that however the system sounded great, really great. So it seemed that room effects were here to stay in this room.

Well that is what I thought - but since getting my DAC back upgraded to G3 status not only has the sound quality REALLY improved but the room effects seem to be much less. In other words the reinforcement and cancellation problem is much less than it was. This is something that Peter may not appreciate because in his room it was never a problem anyway.

The difference here is really noticeable I am currently sitting in what was a previous NO NO for sound quality because there used to be a big bass reinforcement just here on the settee (not my normal listening position it has to be said). Now it just sounds great and a similar balance to the sound as everywhere else in the room.

It is so noticeable that even listening to the speakers from behind in the conservatory is really quite OK now whereas previously it was ARRGGHH bad.

So why is this? well Peter states (again IIRC) that what comes out of the Orelino's with NOS1 driving them is much more phase coherent (or "Phasure") than in other systems that have had phase coherence smashed up by IIR filtering and "other misdemeanors" as Ian Dury would have said. So what has improved with G3 to improve phase coherence (if indeed I am right and that is what has happened)?

Is it the better output stage of NOS1 now responsible for better phase coherence? or maybe it is that "secret" upgrade. Who knows but my system is much better behaved in this room now - much better. Or that is how it seems to my ears.

Standing waves or room modes and nulls are nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the room. They are simply phase additions and cancellations that occur due to reflected waves within the room. There must be another explanation for what you hear other than "no standing waves" because they are a function of the room, not the speaker, and their location below 200hz - 300Hz is identical regardless of where in the room the speakers are placed or even what speakers are used.

Although I could swear Johhny Cash was actually singing in my loft last night, the sound was that good even downstairs!

Well, there is a "chain reaction" going on here. Ok, a room might be cursed with its standing waves (room nodes) which are easy to measure and to explain. But we might perceive them differently than we measure them.I have several times experienced that upgrading my poweramps, tidied up my deep bass, subjectively as if room nodes were less noticeable. The same has happened with improved source components, and even cable changes.

There is an accumulative effect in a sound system. A small distortion reduction in the front end, might be perceived as a bigger improvements after passing through remaining chain (cables, amps, speakers and room).

Well that is what I thought - but since getting my DAC back upgraded to G3 status not only has the sound quality REALLY improved but the room effects seem to be much less. In other words the reinforcement and cancellation problem is much less than it was. This is something that Peter may not appreciate because in his room it was never a problem anyway.

Hey Paul,

Still I had that one corner to check for, which btw only exhibited this "headphone" idea which actually was mere a gag than a problem (might one be sent to the corner ). Besides, as you will recall, this is with your nose right onto the corner and 5 cm away it already did not work. So there was merely reflections going on.In this corner, today, nothing is happening any more. So *now* I have nothing left to check.

Standing waves or room modes and nulls are nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the room. They are simply phase additions and cancellations that occur due to reflected waves within the room.

Unless your nick is PeterSt ... then suddenly other things are going on ...haha

Anthony, it may be just before your times on this forum, but others may recall that this is even an explicit measure for me. And I mean : explicit. So if (today) I notice even the slightest spur of standing wave (or dip) then it is by guarantee that I judge the whetever change to be wrong without further listening. And it is such an easy and comfortable means. Of course, one must first be in the stage of gotten rid of them (like Paul now, as it seems) - at least to some degree so you can have the reference.

Notice that the standing waves can occur in any frequency and they can be incurred for by any means which is detrimental to sound to begin with. Thus, "wrong" DAC and standing waves are your share; wrong filtering in-DAC (or by software) and it happens (ringing !), wrong ampifier - it happens (impedance !), wrong speakers (distortion) - it happens.

It is not so difficult to understand what happens if you only have some belief in the only one on the globe spouting such things (who is me), who comes up with a theory like this (theory, because a bit hard to measure) :

First you must envision sound waves in the 2D plane. Pick one direction the waves travel, like towards you. This of course with the notice that soundwaves travel in the 3D space but with 3D we can not envision a thing (too complicated). Thus, what I am saying is imaginable for 2D but for 3D it will work out just the same (OK, worse).

Say that a wave is put out jagged :

Thus, the intended shape is the dashed line, but from distortions the jagged line is the result.Obviously it is so that any kind of distortion (source) can cause the original sine to be jagged (fed with noise).On a side note : no nice sine ever exists in practice as all is mixed with 100s of different frequencies at any time, but do notice that each frequency originally always is a sine (and a nicely shaped sine if possible). This is how we can only envision things from a theoretical base (and the theory is mine).

Now let's see what could happen in air (still 2D) when two jagged waveforms travel. Try to see that the speaker (one only) is at the bottom of this picture :

(courtesy of I can't read which stock photo site)

The intended waves you can see in the middle of what we call distortion escursions (the jaggies go to the sides in this picture).Also try to envision that these are not the exact same frequencies and the left hand one goes a bit faster then the right hand one. They touch at the jagged ends ...Now the sound buzzes.

Keep in mind that frequencies of course touch all over, but it is about what we add to it with our electronics (and also speaker mechanics). Thus, no matter a violin may show quite square waves (still comprising of sines because that is how a square is build up), it is not really the idea that we make it more sharp than original. But maybe compare with a bag pipe which intends to buzz and is therefore a very difficult instrument because any over-buzz (the distortion we add) and it screams in your ears with a main characteristic that it is uneven (the buzzing resonates (oscillates)).

So, the intended wave is the middle part you can see, without the jaggies. Easy to see how it has become way more difficult for the two waves to interact. When the jaggies wouldn't be there, there's just 4 times the space to move without touching.

The jaggies are my over-emphasis of something which normally wobbles a bit. Thus, on the intended wave a small wobble modulates. This is already caused by jitter. And, especially the lower frequencies suffer first. Why ? well, because any even longer term jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space.Two 50Hz frequencies ? Yes, if we count in the reflections ... (and what about left/right speaker, of course).

And now you see we are getting somewhere, because the room modes/nodes are about that in the first place (so Anthony, of course !). However, still the effect applies of two frequencies (or 100s of them) not being able to touch so easily when they are more lean. Thinner. Without distortion ...

Two waves will emphasize each other with a factor of two when they exactly meet. This is precise aiming when the wave is infinitely thin. Btw, notice that the imagining becomes quite hard now because we should be talking/thinking in the longitudinal direction where the waves exactly meet - say at the head of them. Still it applies, and the thicker that "rope" the easier the ends connect (and emphasize/add).Important : in practice it does not work like this "connecting" at all, because it is about how the top (peak) and bottom side (dip) of two waves add (fall exactly over each other) or cancel (phase is 180 degrees different) and now you need to think a little bit 3D to see how waves may pass eachother when thin, because they must meet in the left/right plane at this small connection point. (but it is on all directions because ... 3D)

So ... all theory only because in 3D all is 100 times more complex (and more crucial with that !) and nothing is to envision in 3D.Fact is that once upon some time my room was stacked with PEQ's to get rid of standing waves which were everywhere. Today I indeed challenge people who listen in my room to find even one, no matter where and no matter the "yea, well, that corner is obvious !". So no, nothing of the kind, no-where.And this indeed is with unheard bass powers and loudness (I easily play over 100dBSPL and still nothing goes wrong in any position in the room).Remember me talking about experimening with a new USB cable (which was deliberately wrong) ? Standing waves all over the place (low frequencies) and buzzing on top of it (high frequencies). Point here is (again) : I can try to be objectively listening to the sound and may fail in liking it, but the standing waves are the real judge and totally objective to begin with (because so easy to hear). And of course zero USB errors, but we know about that by now ...Peter

.......jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space..........

So does the above infer that the "secret upgrade" is the main reason for the reduction in room effects? as surely it is that part of the G3 upgrade that will have improved jitter performance.

Now that I have had the upgraded G3 for a few days I have to say that it is extraordinary. It is like the bandwidth has been increased at each end: effortless and beautifully textured bass and a top end that just seems to be so unforced and right. I am sure that imaging and soundstaging has improved and altogether it is a new experience for me as far as quality of my playback is concerned.

Standing waves or room modes and nulls are nothing to do with the speaker and everything to do with the room. They are simply phase additions and cancellations that occur due to reflected waves within the room.

Unless your nick is PeterSt ... then suddenly other things are going on ...haha

Anthony, it may be just before your times on this forum, but others may recall that this is even an explicit measure for me. And I mean : explicit. So if (today) I notice even the slightest spur of standing wave (or dip) then it is by guarantee that I judge the whetever change to be wrong without further listening. And it is such an easy and comfortable means. Of course, one must first be in the stage of gotten rid of them (like Paul now, as it seems) - at least to some degree so you can have the reference.

Notice that the standing waves can occur in any frequency and they can be incurred for by any means which is detrimental to sound to begin with. Thus, "wrong" DAC and standing waves are your share; wrong filtering in-DAC (or by software) and it happens (ringing !), wrong ampifier - it happens (impedance !), wrong speakers (distortion) - it happens.

It is not so difficult to understand what happens if you only have some belief in the only one on the globe spouting such things (who is me), who comes up with a theory like this (theory, because a bit hard to measure) :

First you must envision sound waves in the 2D plane. Pick one direction the waves travel, like towards you. This of course with the notice that soundwaves travel in the 3D space but with 3D we can not envision a thing (too complicated). Thus, what I am saying is imaginable for 2D but for 3D it will work out just the same (OK, worse).

Say that a wave is put out jagged :

Thus, the intended shape is the dashed line, but from distortions the jagged line is the result.Obviously it is so that any kind of distortion (source) can cause the original sine to be jagged (fed with noise).On a side note : no nice sine ever exists in practice as all is mixed with 100s of different frequencies at any time, but do notice that each frequency originally always is a sine (and a nicely shaped sine if possible). This is how we can only envision things from a theoretical base (and the theory is mine).

Now let's see what could happen in air (still 2D) when two jagged waveforms travel. Try to see that the speaker (one only) is at the bottom of this picture :

(courtesy of I can't read which stock photo site)

The intended waves you can see in the middle of what we call distortion escursions (the jaggies go to the sides in this picture).Also try to envision that these are not the exact same frequencies and the left hand one goes a bit faster then the right hand one. They touch at the jagged ends ...Now the sound buzzes.

Keep in mind that frequencies of course touch all over, but it is about what we add to it with our electronics (and also speaker mechanics). Thus, no matter a violin may show quite square waves (still comprising of sines because that is how a square is build up), it is not really the idea that we make it more sharp than original. But maybe compare with a bag pipe which intends to buzz and is therefore a very difficult instrument because any over-buzz (the distortion we add) and it screams in your ears with a main characteristic that it is uneven (the buzzing resonates (oscillates)).

So, the intended wave is the middle part you can see, without the jaggies. Easy to see how it has become way more difficult for the two waves to interact. When the jaggies wouldn't be there, there's just 4 times the space to move without touching.

The jaggies are my over-emphasis of something which normally wobbles a bit. Thus, on the intended wave a small wobble modulates. This is already caused by jitter. And, especially the lower frequencies suffer first. Why ? well, because any even longer term jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space.Two 50Hz frequencies ? Yes, if we count in the reflections ... (and what about left/right speaker, of course).

And now you see we are getting somewhere, because the room modes/nodes are about that in the first place (so Anthony, of course !). However, still the effect applies of two frequencies (or 100s of them) not being able to touch so easily when they are more lean. Thinner. Without distortion ...

Two waves will emphasize each other with a factor of two when they exactly meet. This is precise aiming when the wave is infinitely thin. Btw, notice that the imagining becomes quite hard now because we should be talking/thinking in the longitudinal direction where the waves exactly meet - say at the head of them. Still it applies, and the thicker that "rope" the easier the ends connect (and emphasize/add).Important : in practice it does not work like this "connecting" at all, because it is about how the top (peak) and bottom side (dip) of two waves add (fall exactly over each other) or cancel (phase is 180 degrees different) and now you need to think a little bit 3D to see how waves may pass eachother when thin, because they must meet in the left/right plane at this small connection point. (but it is on all directions because ... 3D)

So ... all theory only because in 3D all is 100 times more complex (and more crucial with that !) and nothing is to envision in 3D.Fact is that once upon some time my room was stacked with PEQ's to get rid of standing waves which were everywhere. Today I indeed challenge people who listen in my room to find even one, no matter where and no matter the "yea, well, that corner is obvious !". So no, nothing of the kind, no-where.And this indeed is with unheard bass powers and loudness (I easily play over 100dBSPL and still nothing goes wrong in any position in the room).Remember me talking about experimening with a new USB cable (which was deliberately wrong) ? Standing waves all over the place (low frequencies) and buzzing on top of it (high frequencies). Point here is (again) : I can try to be objectively listening to the sound and may fail in liking it, but the standing waves are the real judge and totally objective to begin with (because so easy to hear). And of course zero USB errors, but we know about that by now ...Peter

Hi Peter,

I suppose you could promote some academic argument as you have just made, but regardless of the distortion in the direct or reflected waves they are going to meet and they are going to be different amplitudes at different parts of the room (modal behaviour) regardless of the amount of distortion in the original wave. Reflected waves are more distorted due to the physics of how reflection occurs and which frequencies are reflected by which materials and substrates.

If your room reverb time is 0.5s at a particular frequency or range of frequencies, which is a realistic number, the waves have traveled 170m or so off so many surfaces gradually reducing in strength until we no longer recognise them, and they bear little tonal resemblance to the original direct wave because they have bounced off so many surfaces. Yes, the direct waves have the most energy with a little less energy after the first reflection, and if the 3D waves have a cleaner wavefront with less surface area to "meet" (that is essentially your theory I think) they will still meet and they will still make the cancellation.

In the end, I don't really know, and thinking about a 3D pressure wave is doing my head in so I will leave it here. Your theory is duly noted but I would need more convincing (please don't feel you need to try!)

One thing about the Orelo's: if distortion was really the ultimate aim, why a tractrix horn? The lowest distortion horns are OSWG which is a conical derivative. The tractrix has uneven dispersion across its frequency range, with even dispersion being critical to retaining the tonal balance of reflected sounds. My system is all tractrix...they just sound better (the distortion perhaps?).

.......jitter can imply its own frequency into such a wobble which frequency lasts e.g. 1/20th of a second (50Hz) and the wobble could be 1/4th of that. Thus, the lower the jitter, the less this wobbling exhibits on the lower frequency and again the less the chance two 50Hz frequencies meet in space..........

So does the above infer that the "secret upgrade" is the main reason for the reduction in room effects? as surely it is that part of the G3 upgrade that will have improved jitter performance.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul,

The "secret upgrade" could be part of it, yes, although I myself would not be able to reason out how it technically works. It just has been empirically found (not only by me) that lower jitter on usb () sounds "better", whatever better exactly is or means to us.

Of course I am a bit in the blind because I don't have the standkng waves around, and btw, my last corner disappeard prior to that secret upgrade. So *if* that could be a measure, it will merely be the B'ASS and this is what I had in mind yesterday;

What I never told, is that this actually extra device in there (it is on top of your old gain stage although the old gain stage is now on the new board, including your old main chip for it), implies a net better measurement. But this is also something we slowely but surely learn. So, all NOS1a's go out better than they came in. And this is measurable. The sheer fact of more bass and more highs etc. are not measureable at all - at least not with the gear I have.

Although I will not be able to tell how it works out, a large part of this upgrade is the power supply; you hardly see it, but if you recall the warmth inside which was 40 to 45 celcius a bit depending on the ambient temperature, now it is cloe to ambient itself (in my case it is 25 celcius). Don't underestimate this and note that I did similar with the Stealth (that's actually where I got it from).So it is all about "smart" regulation. It is about higher voltages here and lower voltages there.Oh, what I could measure of it is that the 50Hz/60Hz from the mains can be 100% gone, but this depends on the combination of ground switches. I did NOT write down how that exactly should be, because it was (in theory !) counterproductive to something else, and I actually don't want to know.

I suppose you could promote some academic argument as you have just made, but regardless of the distortion in the direct or reflected waves they are going to meet and they are going to be different amplitudes at different parts of the room (modal behaviour) regardless of the amount of distortion in the original wave. Reflected waves are more distorted due to the physics of how reflection occurs and which frequencies are reflected by which materials and substrates.

Hi Anthony,

Yes of course and I said similar myself (but left reflections out of the equation). But with this you can not say that it is thus allowed to add more distortion at the source.So all counts and all adds up.

Quote

One thing about the Orelo's: if distortion was really the ultimate aim, why a tractrix horn? The lowest distortion horns are OSWG which is a conical derivative. The tractrix has uneven dispersion across its frequency range, with even dispersion being critical to retaining the tonal balance of reflected sounds. My system is all tractrix...they just sound better (the distortion perhaps?).

I hope my answer won't be too strange ... First of all the top horn (which you are talking about) for me was a given fact. I mean, when Bert and I were talking about the design he was thinking of something else, and I just wanted this horn to be part of it. It was a proven concept.What I almost forget is that I myself have worked on it for a year in a row (this is about ten year ago).Lastly, while Bert has the knowledge, I could tweak (with capacitor / coil / resistor values). Or I tried things here at home on his commands. Or the other way around, I found something and we applied it in his studio.The number of hours in it are uncountable.

We also used a special test track for the distortion you mention. This is something with a normal beat, driven by hits on a snare drum, with the very special effect of the skin being hit from the outside, slowly going to the middle in a time span of a minute or so. Thus, these higher very square and actually difficult frequencies change all the time.Whatever we did, the distortion always happened at some stage in that minute, for say 15 seconds. If it was not at the beginning then it was in the middle and if not there it occurred at the end.I ever and always kept on using that track to see where the distortion was and how long it lasts. This is because I knew/know that it is also source (quality) related.

Always and ever is not entirely true, because the past few years I don't use that track explicitly any more. But some times I just play it and then I pay attention to it.6 months or so back, I noticed that there was no distortion at all, throughout. But what I recall from that is that all else was wrong (I really forgot).

Anthony, what happens there in that horn is really not much different from what happens in the room. That is maybe why you came up with it yourself. And it can easily be "tweaked".That horn, of course, already has been tweaked to death and you can't compare it what "the horn guys" are doing, because they don't do it at all if you ask me. Can you do it ? do you have the measurement gear for it ?The biggest trick for a horn is that it should not sound like a horn. Ask anyone who is used to Avant Garde's and who also auditioned over here. There's really a super difference for the "horn aspect". And you know, this is not my expertise ... this is Bert's ...

I will listen to that track again and report back. But it is a bit difficult at the moment because I am working on other things with mixed results. So I first must achieve a consistent situation.

Now that I have had the upgraded G3 for a few days I have to say that it is extraordinary. It is like the bandwidth has been increased at each end: effortless and beautifully textured bass and a top end that just seems to be so unforced and right. I am sure that imaging and soundstaging has improved and altogether it is a new experience for me as far as quality of my playback is concerned.

The NOS G3 is just another brilliant upgrade from Peter. If I hadn't listened to it I wouldn't have believed that SQ could improve so dramatically. Clarity is phenomenal, especially in the mid range. Poorly recorded CD's which I would normally give a pass are now certainly listenable.

The only area the G3 lacks is a bit shy in the bass section. Fortunately with the Orelo's at my disposal this can be easily rectified.

Congratulations Peter for a super job. Would be surprised if it could get any better than this. Lord only knows how many times all of us have said that & been proved wrong each time.

The only area the G3 lacks is a bit shy in the bass section. Fortunately with the Orelo's at my disposal this can be easily rectified.

This is a bit hard to believe (the first part of it ). I mean, if you judge this relative to the "old" NOS1a ...I rather have the idea that you possibly have to set more gain in the Orelo than the theoretical 6dB (you will understand what I am talking about). I mean, you can't compare with the old situation, right ?

I second Joachim's comments. The upgrade makes an already phenomenal DAC that much better. Ridiculously cheap at the price and a no brainer decision from a buyer's standpoint. Just add in the Lush with no increase in shipping and you're all set. Together, the G3 upgrade and the Lush, coming with the usual "built in" support from Peter, are the best deal in Audio.

I was not at home during the summer, so I had a two month break without listening to this high level of SQ. Coming back home I installed my 3G upgraded NOS1-a right a way. And the first impression was WOW!!! I never before had these great basses. Soon I relaized all the incredible improvements of SQ in varous aspects:higher precision, clearer soundstage, better basses, all together a significant fuller body of sound with higher precesion. Just great.

There is one point, which maybe was not mentioned before (I didn't read all the post though):As I reported some months ago, I had kind of a instability of sound when running the NOS1-a for a longer time. After about 5 hours or so, the sound became imprecise and after a day or even more "smearing". So I had to switch off and on my NOS1-a after a couple of hours to get the good SQ back again.

With the 3G UPGRADE THIS BEHAVIOUR IS GONE!There is no need to switch it off and on frequently. It seems to be just the opposite: After switching off and on, the NOS1-a 3G need some minutes to deliver again its best.

I was thinking how to write down my experiences with the G3-upgrade, but when I read Richard’s post above there’s no need to.

I completely agree with his words and maybe add one thing. Some albums kind of sound “new” or different compared to before. I had to check if I played the right album. It’s like the emphasis on some instruments is different that what I was used to. But in a very convincing way (I hope you understand what I mean ).

Hi,the first reaction I had when installing the G3 for the first time was strangeness. I did not quite understand the new sound. I didn´t know if that sounded better or worse than before. On the one hand it was evident that more details were perceived but on the other hand the sound in general appeared as unconcrete, I do not know how to say it, it was as if everything was out of place, the bass appeared also somewhat blurred. For all this, something pushed me to move the speakers looking for a new placement to see if I could recognize the previous sound. Something was telling me that the new sound had qualities that I was not finding. It has taken me at least three weeks, though with some days of pause in the middle, repositioning the speakers until I felt satisfied, and surprised at the same time, with the new sound. Actually I can not add anything other than what others have already said, this sound is simply different from what I've heard so far. It is clear that there are more details and that the placement in the sound scene of so much new detail gives us the sensation, as already has been said, that the cds heard before now seem different. In short, a reproduction of the sound to be accustomed but that is again spectacular. Much more detail but without aggressiveness, a bass that is as voluminous as before but less dry, perhaps more real. I don´t know if others, like me, will be pushed to look for a new speakers placement but, in any case, once I found the correct setting what I can say is that this is the best dac I've ever had, including the previous versions of NOS1. Thank you Peter!

I think you can count me in for speaker (re)placement. Sort of.What I found was that something was inaccurate while I could not find the reason why. So eventually I started thinking that possibly the speakers were not aligned to the cm and thus I changed things with measure in my hand.From here I noticed a difference and also small improvement but after a month or so I still felt dissatisfied. Then I grabbed the IR measure meter I just have and did it really to my best capabilities, on the mm accurate.And now I am happy again (I did this last step maybe 3 months ago).

So Juan, it is that you mention this and that it gives me a reason for my own somehow degraded situation, at first. Somewhere this started to happen to me, but with me weekly applying changes, it went unnoticed when exactly - and thus by what.

Hi Peter, thank you for your offer of help in positioning the speakers. Any advice is welcome. If I am totally honest, I can not assure that I already have found the perfect position for the speakers. Maybe, it could still be better ...

To place the speakers I use a Bosch Laser Measure and placed them to the millimeter. I also placed on a side wall a diffuser panel that I wasn´t used before in this room, I placed it just at the first reflection point at the height of the tweeter. My current room is complicated because it is quite small but still previously it had been easier for me to get a satisfactory sound. Anyway, as I said, so far it has been worth the effort. The good thing about G3 is that you not only perceive its virtues, but also that you can intuit that it has more qualities hidden. It is a challenge, but rewarding.

I forgot one more thing. In some cases it seems like if I'd need to rise up the volume one or two steps to get the same presence as before. Could it be also one of the reasons that pushed me to move the speakers.